Dela Cruz v Concepcion
GR No. 172825, October 11, 2012
FACTS:
On March 25, 1996, petitioners entered into a Contract to Sell with respondent involving a house and lot in Antipolo City for a 2 million consideration.
Respondent made the following payments, to wit:
(1) 500,000 by way of downpayment;
(2) 500,000 on May 30, 1996;
(3) 500,000 paid on January 22, 1997; and
(4) 500,000 bounced check dated June 30, 1997 which was replaced.
Thus, Respondent was able to pay the 2 million total obligation.
Before respondent issued the 500,000 replacement check, she told petitioners that based on the computation of her accountant as of July 6, 1997, her unpaid obligation which includes interests and penalties was only 200,000. Petitioners agreed with respondent. Despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to collect the amounts they claimed. Hence, the complaint for sum of money with damages filed with the RTC of Antipolo Rizal. In her answer with Compulsory counterclaim and during the presentation of evidence, respondent presented a receipt purportedly indicating payment of the remaining balance of 200,000 to Losloso who allegedly received the same on behalf of petitioners.
On March 8, 2014, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision with modification by deleting the award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor of respondent. Aggrieved, petitioners come before the Court in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether it was proper to dismiss the complaint based on the ground that the defendant fully paid the claims of plaintiff
HELD:
Yes.
When the issue is tried without the objection of the parties, it should be treated with all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings. On the other hand, when there is an objection, the evidence may be admitted where its admission will not prejudice him.
Thus, while respondent judicially admitted in her answer that she only paid 2 million and that she still owed petitioners 200,000, respondent claimed later and in fact, submitted an evidence to show that she already paid the whole amount of her unpaid obligation. It is noteworthy what when respondent presented evidence of payment, petitioners did not object thereto.
To be sure, petitioners were given ample opportunity to refute the fact of and present evidence to prove payment.
Digest # 2
Local and Transitory Actions
Cayetano De La Cruz v. El Seminario De La
Cruz Archdiocese of Manila, et. al.
Facts:
·
Petitioner
is a member and the President of Methodist Episcopal religious association in
Dinalupijan, Bataan;
·
The said
religious association, through Petitioner, entered into a lease with Respondent,
through its agent, J.C. Miller;
·
The
purpose of the lease was for the association to construct a chapel thereon; the
lease was for two years;
·
Just
when the chapel was completed, an action for forcible entry and unlawful
detainer was filed by respondent in the Justice of the Peace of Dinalupijan;
·
Consequently,
Judgment was rendered against Petitioners;
·
Since
no appeal was taken and the judgment becoming final, it was executed in a
manner that the chapel was completely destroyed;
·
Subsequent
thereto, Petitioner commenced an action in the CFI of Manila against the appellants
to recover the sum of P2,000.00 as damages for a breach of the rental contract;
·
Respondents
filed a demurrer based on the ground that the City of Manila was without
jurisdiction for the reason that damages for injuries caused to real property
situated in the Province of Bataan is sought to be recovered; therefore, Bataan
should have jurisdiction;
Lower court decisions:
CFI of
Manila: Overruled the demurrer and rendered judgment in favor of Petitioner
*Respondents
moved for new trial but such motion was overruled
Issue: WON the demurrer was improperly overruled because the CFI
of Manila has no jurisdiction
Ruling: No, the demurrer was properly overruled.
This is
not an action to recover damages to real estate; it is an action for breach of covenant
in a lease. The fact that the damage to real estate are involved, as an
incident to the breach of contract, does not change the character of the
action. Such an action is personal and transitory.
If the
action is founded on the privity of contract between the parties, the action is
transitory whether it is a debt or a covenant. But if there is no privity of
contract and the action is founded on privity of estate only, such a covenant
runs with the land in the hands of the remote grantees, then the action is
local and must be brought in the county wherein the land lies.
In an
action on a covenant contained in a lease, whether begun by the lessor against
the lessee, or the lessee against the lessor, the action is transitory because
it is founded on a mere privity of contract.
In
general also, actions which are founded upon contracts are transitory. In an
action upon a lease for nonpayment of rent or other breach of covenants, when
the action is founded on the privity of contract, it is transitory and the
venue may be laid in any county.
Therefore,
respondents’ basis that section 377 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies,
which provides among others, that actions to recover damages for injuries to
real estate shall be brought in the province where the land, or a part thereof,
is situated, is not tenable.
Posts
